Burning Oil on Freezing Water – (one person’s view of the
extreme reactions to the Ice Bucket Challenge)
The Ice Bucket Challenge has led
to a massive debate about whether what is being done to raise money is right. From
champions of water politics to anti vivisectionists, more and more people are
progressively militant with their reactions. So I thought , in the spirit of
debate, I’d give my opinion. And why
not. Enough other people are giving their’s, I’ll just disappear into the
background.
So people with MND / ASL should
just die, with no help at all, is that right? Cancer. AIDS. Malaria. Would you
have them stop research on those? More people know more people who have those
than MND. Hey, there are more sufferers. But should those with MND have fewer
rights to better treatment as a result of the disease they suffer from? You
either condemn and stop research outright - which would please a few - but be
accused of murder for not doing enough, or you develop the platform for
research (you could pay students or those who choose to be tested - actually
not a bad idea) away from the current methods, but they are the current methods.
You're right, animal cruelty is an abomination. There must be better ways to do
it. I don't know the answer.
I'm not saying that this method of funding a
charity is right, or that the charities involved are terribly well organised
(because, of course, all other charities are BRILLIANTLY managed, aren’t they?)
or that all the work the charities involved do is, as is now so regularly
pointed out, ethical or moral, but if you really have met someone with MND and
had a relationship with them that goes beyond merely knowing that they've got
it, then you'll realise just how horrible it is and to be able to do something
worthwhile to alleviate their pain, fear, loneliness, their progressive incapacity
and enable them to live with a greater quality of life and die with dignity is
a GOOD thing. Having said that, I presume I have now invited damnation and all
the anti-vivisection vitriol you see fit to rain down upon me.
In which case I'll just pour oil
on the fire and, without lambasting him because what he’s doing is great work, add
that MATT DAMON did his challenge in a drought ridden area. So, of course, he
will be careful with the water he uses (although taking water from multiple
toilets isn’t actually using less water. He might just as well have poured it
from the tap since it all comes from the same place!) He is also a champion of
Water.org. Another GOOD thing. Although, taking water from the water table in a
drought area like many countries in Africa, removes it from water holes and underground
lakes that feed many other places, too, adversely affecting another ecosystem,
so humanity destroys more in the search for continued existence. Yin and yang
do not necessarily balance here, either. The arguments have many sides.
However, in a country where water
is available - and currently in abundance! - why shouldn't we? For example, in
Gaza they've been doing the Rubble bucket challenge. In Egypt the Sand bucket
challenge (albeit making different points!)
And before anyone really weighs in, the fact that we can even have this
debate is because of where we live and the opportunities afforded to us. Not
all of which have been built entirely on moral or ethical ground. Despite what
some people think, I do not have a soap box to stand on or a high moral ground
to mount, but there seems to be a lot of one-sided propaganda.
I’ll close with a response to
people saying that this whole exercise is unethical, immoral and offensive.
The fact that we're all in a
position to do something worthwhile and debate the efficacy of it is a good
thing. I'm sure that most people haven't looked at the facts, or the financing.
I'm pretty sure that most people don't do that any of the time, just think of
the number of times you click on Ts & Cs without reading them. They just do
what they think is right. And they do it, mostly, for the right reasons. And they
do it because it makes them feel better. That doesn’t make people bad.
There are as many sides to an argument
as you care to propose and each of us has a right to our opinion whether
everyone agrees or not (thank God we don’t, how boring would that be?) So could
we stop the vitriolic ranting and the ritual, sanctimonious justifications,
please?
Thanks
.
M
No comments:
Post a Comment